Tuesday, November 30, 2004

eah, real smart. If I were a Ukrainian, and the sore loseral and assorted foreign countries were demanding that I go stand in line again for hours to vote after I'd already done so, guess who I'd be taking out all my frustrations on as I pressed the Submit Ballot button? The doofus who forced me to do that, that's who. The announced winner of the Ukrainian election himself is saying he wouldn't oppose such a revote. Now you know why.

Work only with the votes the people cast the first time or just shut up. That's my unsolicited advice to whoever now or in the future thinks it's ever a good idea to call for a revote after any election. Previously submitted ballots can be easily reexamined and then either confirmed or tossed. Just takes time and a little patience. Any irregularities can be discovered and fixed then too—which won't happen with a revote while any of the same irregularities are still in place.

Okay. I'll butt out of the Ukrainians' business now and let their own court system work the thing out. Wish France et al. would follow suit. Geezh.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Question—"Is it time for the U.S. to end the Electoral College? If so, in favor of what alternative system? If not, why is it still relevant and beneficial to the nation?"*

W

eighing the alternatives, from several of the more plausible ones all the way up to a few of the most extreme, should put the current system of choosing our president into its proper perspective. The nature of the presidency itself sheds light on the reasons for favoring that particular system over others.

As part of a republican form of government, rather than a purely democratic one, the executive is subject to the same underlying principle which governs its two coequal branches: namely, that the people's representatives, not the people themselves, finalize all decisions of our government. This is because of the sheer impracticality of holding numerous, nationwide referenda on those decisions—a procedure both cumbersome and lengthy, and a process prone to unwarranted delays and an inherent rigidness which affords little chance of timely adjustment or correction of especially urgent decisions.

Instead, for deciding every governmental act, we have set up a body of intermediators democratically chosen by and representing the people of all the states, respectively. In the case of the legislative branch, those intermediators are members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who bicamerally decide each act of making law:

People (districts)

>

Representatives

>

Act

People1 (states)

>

Senators

In the case of the executive branch, the intermediators are electors who decide each act of executing law. Except that this act is essentially one person vested with all executive powers, so as to ensure a continuity and firmness of energy and purpose which any effective head of state and civil commander of a nation's armed forces requires:

People2 (states)

>

Electors

>

President

However, in the judiciary branch's case the President and the Senate together decide each act of interpreting law—that is, a single judge whose power to decide cases, vested for life, helps shape the meaning of the law:

People (states)

>

Senators

>

Judge

Electors

>

President

Each such intermediator between the people and their government's legislative, executive, and judicial acts is ultimately answerable to them at regular intervals at the ballot box. Moreover, the process as a whole has evolved into a more democratic one, while the structure itself remains entirely republican.

We the people have chosen this form of government, as expressed by our federal constitution, reserving always the right to choose another if we so desire. We also approved a procedure for altering the current one by way of constitutional amendment, which we followed to ratify each of the 27 amendments we have today. Should we do so now to alter or abolish the Electoral College System?

Before paving this particular new road with good intentions we probably should ask ourselves what are the alternatives to that system? Some of the plausible and implausible ones include:

Nationwide popular vote

For fans of a democratic form of government on a national scale, it's The Bomb. Advantages are that any recounts would be conducted all across the country rather than just in a single state like Florida or a few of its counties; practically every election will require a run-off; candidates will need to campaign only in four or five major cities and can happily ignore the rest of the country—wait. Sorry, those are probably all disadvantages. The advantages then are that...well, some...ok, uh. Oh, I know! All those anarchists out there will finally pipe down because there will be enough complete, unbridled chaos every four years to really give them something to smile about. This may be referred to as the Goodbye Republican Form of Government, Hello Demagogues System—or more simply, the Hilldabeast System.

Congressional-district voting

Whoever wins a congressional district, either by majority or plurality of the votes, gets the one electoral vote for that district. The winner of the statewide vote takes the two electoral votes for that state. Advantage is that moderate anarchists will be happy because, while it only approximates the popular-vote results, it maintains much of the calamity associated with numerous, widespread recounts. Nonetheless, this is not really an alternative since states already have the constitutional authority to go with this option (as Maine and Nebraska have done)—although a constitutional amendment could make it mandatory. Call it the Electoral College Lite System.

Worldwide voting

Since France and other alleged nations are so eager to participate in our elections, claiming their citizens should have an equal say over who we choose as our leaders, why not expand the eligibility requirements so every person in the world 18 years of age or older may cast a ballot? Just think, we'd have billions instead of mere millions of votes to count. All recounts could take years if not decades. Chinese citizens would finally get to vote in their first democratic election ever. "Kumbaya, My Statism, Kumbaya" would become our national anthem! The disadvantage—at least to America's nonliberals—is that our country would cease to be a sovereign nation. This may be known as the al-Qerry Ultimate Appeasement System.

Don't worry, I don't know what it means either. Just call this one the Huh? System and let's moveon.

A few alternatives that do away with popular voting altogether are:

Congress chooses

Under this system, either each state's delegation gets one vote or every representative and senator does. Since there wouldn't be a separation of powers any more between the legislative and executive branches, you can accurately call it a Parliamentary System. Oh, you'd probably have to call the commander-in-chief Mr./Ms. Prime Minister, also.

Duel at 5,000 paces

Name this one the Miller-Matthews Electoral System, in honor of the famous verbal exchange on MSNBC. Here, the one challenged (incumbent or candidate from incumbent's party) gets to shoot first. The candidate duelist still standing wins. If both miss, they close the distance by half. Repeat until there's a winner. In the event there are third-party candidates, you could have seeded matches and eliminations just like in tennis. Would probably get higher ratings than any Wimbledon too.

The advantage is that the president will be an excellent shot, which may allow us to decrease the Secret Service's budget somewhat (and thus help reduce the deficit). The disadvantage is that each loser likely won't be a viable candidate for the next election duel.

Karl Rove granted absolute authority to pick winner

With this system—oh, that's right. This is a discussion about systems we aren't using now. Nevermind...I mean, Mmmwahha hahaha hahha!

King/Queen of Great America and Outlying Areas

This is the Been There Done That System. If we want to go back to it, but this time make sure some sort of popular voting is involved, perhaps we could allow the people to choose the wife/husband of the prince/princess when the latter reaches marrying age.

The system our nation has been using for two centuries to ensure the peaceful succession of power (if you exclude Florida 2000) will remain in place until there can be found a better alternative that meets with the approval of two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-quarters of all the states. It is unlikely that even the most plausible ones mentioned or linked here could gain such approval anytime soon.

Then what's so great about the current system? For one thing, if you prefer a federal instead of a unitary government then the Electoral College is the best way to go. It gives the people of every state a real say-so in choosing who represents all the states in our nation's highest office. The voices of rural and small-town voters aren't drowned out by those of suburban and urban voters. It precludes a concentration of power in any of our densely populated Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The president's constituency is therefore more broad and binds him to all parts of our country rather than to just our largest cities.

Second, the Electoral College incorporates and balances the need for a regular, periodic popular vote with our standing choice to preserve a representative democracy. It accomplishes the latter by minimizing those "little arts of popularity" often associated with the former. As Ann Coulter exquisitely points out:

It should come as no surprise that Hillary [al-Qlinton] opposes the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton explained that the whole point of the Electoral College was to interpose "every practicable obstacle" to "cabal, intrigue and corruption." The roundabout method of choosing a president imposed by the Constitution was intended to frustrate "the adversaries of republican government" and prevent them from gaining "an improper ascendant in our councils." . . .

Indeed, the current crisis foisted on the nation by Al Gore [i.e., Florida 2000] illustrates with some clarity the sort of mischief the Electoral College sought to prevent. The late Yale law professor Alexander Bickel argued that by tallying presidential votes state by state, the Electoral College would isolate the effect of voter fraud in any one state, legitimizing the election results.

If the entire raw national total were up for grabs, the whole country would have to be initiated into the Chicago vote-stealing customs now being introduced in Florida.

Banana republics such as France have direct presidential voting, which has led to their foisting on the whole world all manner of corrupting ills such as Jacque ChIraq. Thankfully, the Electoral College readily pulverizes these foisterous attempts.

Third, because a candidate must receive a majority of all electoral votes to be elected, the Electoral College is itself an entirely democratic institution. In the event no candidate receives such majority, the House of Representatives—another democratic institution—"choose[s] immediately, by ballot, the President," with each state's delegation having one vote. The latter is much more certain and less complex than any instant-runoff method proposed with the Hilldabeast System.

Fourth, the Electoral College is flexible enough to allow practically any method of appointing electors—popular vote, selection by state legislature, flip of the coin, tea leaves, etc.—without the need for a constitutional amendment. That's because, under our Constitution, state legislatures have plenary powers to direct which method their states respectively use. Indeed, in Gore v. Everyone with any Functioning Brain Cells (2000), the U.S Supreme Court held that a state legislature "may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself." Of course, the people of every state are going to get their say here, too. Since each member of a state legislature is still answerable to his constituents, they probably wouldn't look too kindly on him, come election time, if he had ever proposed or voted in favor of that tea-leaves method.

Finally, our Electoral College System does not exist in a vacuum, independent of the constant, competing forces of democracy and republicanism, of state sovereignty and federalism, which our Constitution works everywhere else to balance for the good of the people. Even the number of electors are equal to the number of House and Senate members—while at the same time no House or Senate member or anyone "holding an office of trust or profit under the United States" may be an elector. The presidency is permanent, while the body whose duty it is to elect our presidents isn't, existing only for a matter of weeks and completely dissolving once that duty is done. In this task the electors are our representatives, appointed by us through the democratic process. Although our state legislatures, whose members are also elected by us, have sole power to alter that method of appointment, they have always used such power to make it more democratic. It is precisely these checks and balances which ensure that the election of our nation's president is both peaceful and orderly and results in elevating to her highest office a natural born citizen who can and will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As a refresher for liberals, Florida Supreme Court judges, and anyone else who hasn't read our Constitution in a while, its relevant provisions as they were originally written are:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves....The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed....

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. (Art. II, Sec. 1)

An amendment requiring separate votes for President and Vice President was ratified in 1804, and another enfranchising the residents of the District of Columbia was ratified in 1961:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves....The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.... (Amend. XII)

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. (Amend. XXIII, Sec. 1)

By law, the time of choosing electors is "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November" in every year evenly divisible by four. (3 USC 1; e.g., Nov. 2, 2004) The day on which the electors give their votes is "the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment." (3 USC 7; e.g., Dec. 13, 2004) Shown in the table below is the number of electoral votes each state presently has:

EV

State

55

California

34

Texas

31

New York

27

Florida

21

Illinois

21

Pennsylvania

20

Ohio

17

Michigan

15

Georgia

15

New Jersey

15

North Carolina

13

Virginia

12

Massachusetts

11

Indiana

11

Missouri

11

Tennessee

11

Washington

EV

State

10

Arizona

10

Maryland

10

Minnesota

10

Wisconsin

9

Alabama

9

Colorado

9

Louisiana

8

Kentucky

8

South Carolina

7

Connecticut

7

Iowa

7

Oklahoma

7

Oregon

6

Arkansas

6

Kansas

6

Mississippi

5

Nebraska

EV

State

5

Nevada

5

New Mexico

5

Utah

5

West Virginia

4

Hawaii

4

Idaho

4

Maine

4

New Hampshire

4

Rhode Island

3

Alaska

3

Delaware

3

D.C.

3

Montana

3

North Dakota

3

South Dakota

3

Vermont

3

Wyoming

All but two states use the winner-take-all method, where the candidate with the highest popular vote statewide receives the state's entire slate of electors, each pledged to vote for him. Consequently, the least number of states a candidate needs to win to be elected president is eleven—i.e, California through North Carolina above, which together possess 271 of the total 538 electoral votes. Also, any candidate who wins 41 or more states clinches the election.

In light of these ways in which the current system promotes our best interests, more so than even the most plausible alternative, it is still relevant and beneficial to the nation.

Under our Constitution, state legislatures have power to direct how electors are chosen and appointed.

* What started out to be just my two or three paragraph response which I originally intended, quickly grew beyond all sensible proportion after I began researching this subject and finding out several things about it I didn't know before. As a result, I missed the Wednesday evening deadline to have this answer linked alongside those at Homespun Bloggers.

Sources say "resignation" just the first of many planned at the newspaper liberal propaganda machine.

T

oken "conservatives" need no longer apply. That's the message being broadcast by the libspaper's management to all potential writers seeking the job left vacant by its first in a planned series of "retirements."

One applicant, who submitted her résumé "just for kicks" after learning of the opening, was not surprised by the reaction she got from the libspaper's personnel department. "I told them I already had four books that topped their own best-sellers list—in fact, the latest is at Number 3 right now—so I'd be perfect for the job. As soon as they picked their jaws up off the floor, they pretty much told me 'don't call us, we'll call you.' It was really a quite entertaining sight." Repeated requests to the libspaper's management for any comment on its refusal to hire such a highly accomplished and qualified author for the columnist position, were all ignored.

Several sources close to the libspaper were not surprised by its oncoming internal shakeup. "I knew there were plans over there to do something like this. I'm just surprised that they hadn't done it a lot sooner," one source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Experts say the reason all these shakeups are occurring now is the institution of a new policy at the Rinds geared to weeding out every last vestige of conservatism at the libspaper. "They're its version of insurgents," said Imso Smart, highly overpaid professor at Columbia School of Journalism. "They want to root out the ones still hold up in parts of its paper[liberal propaganda machine]. With the departure of Bill Safired, it looks like they're succeeding."

Another expert said it is normal for a journalism propaganda outfit to engage in such "purges" after miserably failing to accomplish anything from a prolonged partisan effort to snooker voters into electing "one of its own." Libbi Ased, associate director of media relations at PU Research Associates, likened the purges of "conservative" writers now going on at the Rinds to a train derailment. "First you see all those tipped-over boxcars alongside the rails, some at crazy angles or resting atop other cars. The engine out front is still smoldering and rescue working are pulling out survivors. Yet the only thing railroad management wants to do is blame the guy who was sleeping in the caboose."

At least one moronically endowed "writer" is still keeping her job. "I told them I'd be even more shrill and incoherent from now on—that they didn't have to be such a vengeful mob," she said, speaking in a condition of absolute obscurity. "I pleaded with them to let me stay. You can imagine my glistening relief when they told me I would never be the object of their bloodthirsty feelings. The vibe I was getting from them was that they consider me infallible."

Monday, November 15, 2004

ush Administration starts its next term with much currency onhand after seeing profit margins increase beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Among the leading indicators to keep an eye on during the next four years, as reactionary liberals collectively gaze at their navels desperately looking for a talking point after miserably failing to notice the one lying directly beneath each of their tinfoil hats, are:

Have Zell take away Mineta's spitballs, now

For some strange reason, there's this tradition that presidents put a member of the opposition party on their cabinets. Leaving aside the wisdom of doing so when that party is clearly a national one no more, whatever possessed our president to appoint Norman Mineta and his trusty baseball bat as transportation secretary will be a topic for baffled executive-branch scholars well into the next century. It is now high time that he instead find for that job a more loyal American among the decimated disloyal opposition. Nonetheless, it's perfectly all right for our president to offer any laid-off Senate minority leaders who are victims of political downsizing an entry-level janitorial position within our nation's transportation department.

The top position, however, would be perfect for retiring senator and former governor Zell Miller.

If Senator Miller could be persuaded to continue for just two more years his distinguished career of extraordinarily capable public service, he would be best qualified, in my opinion, to turn the transportation department around from its Leave No Granny Unhassled (But Every Usama Unscreened) policies to ones that actually protect the flying public's safety. Although the department's Transportation Security Administration was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003, TSA "continue[s] to work closely with the operating administrations" of DOT. In non-bureaucratese, that means we're pretty much following their lead on security issues until the transition's 100% complete. Even now, there's much a DOT head could do to help improve TSA's operations.

For example, a Secretary Miller would be among the strongest advocates for arming more than a handful of pilots, since he was an original cosponsor of Senator Bob Smith's bill providing for the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Unfortunately, Secretary Mineta has beaten that program over the head so much with his aforementioned bat that only pilots who are gluttons for punishment from the intentionally overly rigorous and intrusive psychological testing (affectionately called "The Rack"), the threats to career affecting anyone who fails to pass such testing, and the no-expense paid travel to a remote New Mexican desert just to reach the only training facility, are participating in the program. As a consequence, the number of terrorists who hijacked four passenger jets and used them as missiles on September 11, 2001, still exceeds the number of armed pilots who have a real chance to stop such jumbo-kamikaze attacks. Right now, all of them would need to tell the terrorist, "Excuse me why I retrieve my gun from its lockbox. It'll just take a sec."

During Secretary Miller's temporary two-year stint as our transportation secretary, he would groom the next secretary for the job, so when the latter replaces him no Middle Eastern terrorist anywhere would benefit from any secondary screening loopholes or other political correctness nonsense.

Win the war, lose the appeasement

Not having France as an ally—so the old joke goes—is about as worrisome as going hunting without an accordion. In this World War, wasting any of our time trying to successfully appease a corrupt French government just to get it onboard as an ally, would be counterproductive at best. At worst, it would divert us from actually winning that war. We should've learned that lesson in 1945, when France weaseled its way into the conference at Yalta and whined until Great Britain and the United States turned over to it significant portions of our post-war occupation zones in Germany, causing military leaders to alter their war plans.

Even after sixty years—from France's shameless mishandling of Marshall Plan aid money, to its staunch refusal to let our jets fly through its airspace on their way to attack Libya in reprisal for the latter's murderous bombing of a German discotheque frequented by American servicemen, and more recently its attempts to undermine any real enforcement of the United Nations' resolutions against its business blackmarket partner Saddam Hussein—we haven't learned our lesson. Not only that, the Left still has the gall to lecture us about the implausible virtues of mindlessly considering France our "traditional ally." Traditional backstabber is more like it. Nevertheless, it's not too late to finally learn it.

Paraphrasing the Don's immortal words, "France, you're fired." Go peddle your cheese on some other county gullible enough to buy it. When you aren't too busy unilaterally mowing down civilians in the Ivory Coast, of course. In the meantime, we'll continue to fight and win this World War for not only our own benefit but—and I'm at a complete loss as to exactly why—yours as well, without your help hindrance, merci beaucoup.

Personalized, not privatized

That's what Social Security Reform means. Current retirees won't be eating dog food or living under bridges. The promises made to them regarding their benefits will be kept, no matter what else happens.

For those still working, I believe in their right to choose whether to have all their withholdings go straight into the Social Security system, or to have a portion of those withholdings go first into their own personal retirement accounts, from which it is invested in a number of federally certified bonds and stock options that they select, are secure and safe, yield a higher rate of return than the current system ever could, and, equally important, help boost our economy and create jobs.

Every penny in a workers' personal retirement account, including all accumulated interest, remains in the Social Security system. The total amount in all such accounts is used to meet the system's payout obligations to current beneficiaries. There is no bankrupting of that system or removing or diverting any funds from it.

The only way a person receives any money from his personal retirement account is if he retires or dies. If retired, he receives monthly benefits just like every other retiree as long as he's alive. When he dies, whether before or after reaching retirement age, the balance in his personal account is paid out to his estate, either in a lump sum or periodic payments, depending on which method he may have chosen. The latter is the default method.

Finally, there is a maximum limit on the percentage of withholdings that an individual can choose to have go into his personal retirement account. The rest goes straight into the Social Security system. Moreover, the account's principal and accrued interest are not taxed. Only payments from it to the beneficiary or his estate are. This means the withholding tax on a person's wages or salary is not considered part of that person's income for income tax purposes. Not only does this avoid unfair double-taxation, but it allows the government to tax a much larger amount later than a small one now. Liberals, especially, should be very happy about that part.

That's why we should establish, stand up and fight for, support, preserve, guarantee, uphold, protect, keep a vigilant guard on, save, affirm, and celebrate a worker's right to choose how she or he should plan financially for her or his own retirement. We should not take away, eliminate, ban, curtail, repeal, limit, erode, infringe on, undermine, or otherwise deny her or him that right to choose.

Here comes the judge, here comes the judge

Speaking of retirements, there's a strong likelihood that several Supreme Court justices will be entering theirs during the next four years. Also, the last election makes it more likely that many of the remaining vacancies in our federal courts of appeals will finally get filled. With the return of up-or-down voting in the Senate, we will also once again see democracy at work and no longer held hostage in that august body.

2Aers of the world, unite!

The 109th Congress has a much better chance, too, of passing a number of bills that would better protect our Second Amendment rights, given that former obstructionist-in-chief SadTom Daschle and his hoplophobic, extremist former colleagues in the Senate are now practically incapable of setting up any more undemocratic roadblocks there. These bills include the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would prohibit predatory lawsuits whose real aim is to blame American manufacturers of non-defective firearms for any criminal misuse of their products, therefore completely eliminating that coordinated, restraint-of-trade effort to run them all out of business; and the repeal of the Firearms Control Regulations Act (D.C. Law 1-85; sec. 7-2501.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), which effectively disarms all law-abiding citizens in our nation's capital, making every such citizen inviting prey for any criminals who—because they're criminals—don't really believe gun-ban laws apply to them.

Perhaps combine the two and name the final bill the Make Americans Happy While Making Tom Much Sadder Act of 2005.

Swiftly Reducing the Budget Deficit: A Modest Proposal

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through the halls of Congress, or fly over flyover country, when they see the federal budget, CBO projections, the OMB accounts and U.S. Treasury crowded with IOU's, followed by three, four, or six trillion dollars' worth of debt, and importuning every liberal for an huge, offsetting tax increase.

Happily, we do have a mandate from the last election which everyone can agree on regarding this situation. Namely, that the right to choose higher taxes or not is one the government must both recognize and protect in every area of the country, according to whichever choice the citizens of that area may democratically express. Given that such expression by an entire state's citizenry is too broad, or by any one precinct's too narrow, in fairness to all citizens the choices they've expressed at the county level should be the ones specifically recognized and protected.

In endeavoring to promote this necessary work, I am offering a plan to reduce spending in every county which has requested those higher taxes, rather than one that would directly raise the amount of taxes its citizens now pay. It is a more just and fair manner of achieving the same object. They would also have the added comfort of knowing that the savings in spending on their counties is going to be applied toward the very thing they most want: reducing our federal budget deficit.

The particulars of this plan are summed up in the following formula:

W (P - 50%) / 2

Where W is a factor representing when we win World War IV—i.e., zero if it's won before 2005, 1/2 if won before 2006, 2/3 if won before 2007, 3/4 if won before 2007, etc.; and P is the percentage of a country's voters which chose to accept the tax-increase agenda (Qerry "Plan") offered in the last election.

For example, if 62% of Smith County had chosen al-Qerry's "Plan," and our nation is still at war on January 1, 2005, then the decrease in federal assistance for Smith County in that year would be—

(1/2) (62% - 50%) / 2 = 3%,

with the savings applied toward deficit reduction.

Because there are a number of such Smith Counties bluely dotting the United States, sufficient in their levels of desire for higher taxes to make the total calculated spending decrease much larger than any anticipated budget shortfall, it behooves our nation to wholeheartedly adopt this most effective deficit-reduction plan.

Jesusland welcomes you, hallelujah!

In addition to allowing liberals the chance to have their counties contribute toward reducing this nation's budget deficits, we should also, for the good of our country, be ever willing to reach out to the less radical and extremist ones in the Congress so we may together spend all accumulated political capital on these investments. Consequently, there is no need for any of those more rational senators and representatives to become Canadians. The rest, however, always have the right to choose such an exit strategy if they so wish. Amen.

It's the tax cuts, stupid

Duh. Three words: Make! Them! Permanent!

Whadya mean she can't marry both her sisters or her cat, you fascist!

One formula that has long stood the test of time with regard to maintaining the strength and self-perpetuation of civilization as we know it as well as every human community, securing a real future for both, is:

Marriage = Man + Woman.

Where the man and woman are not closely related, and both are legally competent to give their knowledgeable consent. That formula is irreducible and not subject to any division by a society that values its own preservation and stability. It is no mere hyperbole to say this formula is only defined within an asymptotic boundary that none but the most suicidal of cultures have ever attempted to cross. All questions of discrimination or equal protection and other related issues dealing with the law's treatment of individuals, whether married or unmarried, may not be equitably addressed except from this side of that line.

Of course, selfish engagement in destructive behaviors such as trying to redefine marriage without the people's consent, has been an enduring hallmark of the Left's more narcissistic contingents. Not content with mere toleration, they would rather shop around for a panel of unelected judges eager to force on everyone through judicial edict an uncommon acceptance that no majority has ever chosen at the ballot box to give them. Others who resist the tyranny of these undemocratic impositions are branded Nazi, Hitler, Bigot, 'Phobe, and similar hearts-and-minds winning terms. They show only contempt for the views of anyone who disagrees with them. Why should they expect anything else in return?

Fortunately, in this country, unlike in many European nations, every court, agency, or office of our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. All public acts are amenable to them—a fact our nation's constitution recognizes, even if liberals don't. That's why it provides for amending anything and everything in it, short of denying any state its equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent. So if two-thirds of both the Senate and House and three-quarters of all the states want to constitutionally protect the current definition of marriage, the Left will totally lose access to its pet judges on this issue. The people, not their courts, will have the final say.

Here's the text of the marriage protection amendment introduced in the last Congress:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The caribou are back—and this time it's personal

While we're on the subject of self-sustaining herds, in Alaska's North Slope in Prudhoe Bay an increasingly prodigious group of Porcupine caribou are demonstrating to the fullest extent their own sexual preferences. To say that Santa has more than enough of them now to pull an entire fleet of sleighs would be putting it mildly. Unfortunately, in a small, extremely inhospitable portion of the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the reindeer are about the only ones actually finding good jobs.

Underneath the herds' hooves is something else even more prodigious. Oil. Tens of billions of barrels of it. Including in ANWR's coastal plain area—"a flat, treeless, almost featureless plain...[where the] temperature can drop to -40 degrees Fahrenheit":

The U.S. Geological Survey and the federal government's Energy Information Administration estimate that there are possibly 16 billion barrels of oil beneath the surface in the coastal plain. Even at the low end—with about 3.2 billion barrels—the field would be the second-largest ever discovered in the United States.

The first is Prudhoe Bay, which was estimated in 1968 to hold 9 billion barrels of oil, but which has produced nearly 13 billion barrels—or 20 to 25 percent of the oil produced in this nation for the last 23 years. If there were 16 billion barrels in the coastal plain, it would substitute for what we would otherwise have to import from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years.[emphasis added]

Although liberals aren't the only ones saying we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, their answer is basically to have us all turn in our SUVs and buy bicycles and tennis shoes instead. Those not residing in Disneyland know we can lessen that dependence by safely drilling here at home. In time of war we should. We can still minimize in a sensible and practicable way that drilling's environmental impact.

It's not like anyone's asking to drill every inch of the coastal plan's non-pristine, barren wasteland's 1.5 million acres. President Bush proposes limiting it to just 2,000 acres—a mere 0.1 percent of the total. To hear liberals talk you'd think we were going up there to chop down all the trees (which don't exist there) and club every baby seal in sight.

If you're an Inupiat tribal member who actually lives in the region and would like an extraordinarily well-paying job, it must be especially galling to know that radical liberals would rather hold back and discriminate against minorities in favor of such environmental wastelands, than allow them the real chance to have a good job and help the economy. The Teamsters aren't too pleased about the liberals' Jobs Prevention Policy™ either.

Moreover, it doesn't take a national-security expert to understand that our economy is a major target too in this World War; and that the more we strengthen our economy and decrease its vulnerabilities, the less inviting a target it becomes. Where it's glaringly vulnerable is our overdependence on foreign sources of the one indispensable ingredient fueling that economy. That's why islamofascists are killing petroleum workers and attacking oil facilities in Saudi Arabia.

Given that the democratic process is about to be restored in our Senate, the Congress has a much better chance to finally pass an energy bill that includes plans for extracting oil from those 2,000 non-pristine acres inside ANWR, using the most environmentally-safe methods possible. That will do much to increase our dependence on domestic rather than foreign oil and thus make terrorists and liberals very, very unhappy.

Micky's DVDs for Osama no moore

Nor for Hamas murderers and other FOMs (Friends of Mooron). It would be so much more helpful to our war effort, don't you think, if we didn't have to hear bin Laden quoting on Al-Jazeera TV his favorite lines from Mickey Francis Manure's latest flatulentary? Of course it would.

Speaking of enemy propaganda and efforts to demoralize us, is there a good reason we aren't jamming Al-Jazeera's signals while our servicemen and women are dying in combat? I don't see any good reason either.

Save the liberals, collect the whole set

Let's face it. President Bush and many, many, many other Republicans could not have won their elections without the hard work and dedication shown by liberals on behalf of their various and notably incoherent whacked-out moonbateous causes. For this reason we would do well to nurture and encourage them in their time of need for a microphone through which they may spew before a national audience every syllable of their fatuous utterances and shrill Deaniacal screams. Not only that, the American viewing public would stand to lose out on experiencing further the unfathomable pleasure of seeing more incomparable episodes of their enormously entertaining sideline antics as they struggle to discover why they'd been ejected off the third-string bench, much less from the actual field of play, in the event they ever learn to keep their big, stupid, treasonous mouths shut.

So when a liberal speaks, give him ground as well as a shovel, and watch the fun start when he uses them to quickly dig an extremely deep grave for himself.

Our future's in exceptionally good hands

Terrorists and tyrants are also being exposed to such graves, literally. All thanks to the Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the United States Armed Forces. They even caught a deposed tyrant crawling out of one; with the exception that his had the shape and plumbing apparatus of—appropriately enough—a septic tank.

When I see our men fighting islamofascists on the front lines of this World War it's hard to remember that they are in fact mostly very young men. That's because the bravery, heroism, discipline, and ambassadorship-by-example they brightly display for all the world to see is uncommon other than among the most revered and aged leaders of any society, present or past. Yet they do so under circumstances more adverse than many of the latter ever experienced after having lived three or four times as long. It is easy to see our troops in such an age-defying light.

Their acts of defending freedom, from the harrows of combat to the hearts of those they're liberating, are affecting the course of human events on a global scale. They are steering it against the violent resistance of Freedom's worst enemies, and towards a better future for all her friends. It is why as I witness them living most totally in the present during operations that require them to bring to bear all their resources and training on defeating these evilest of enemies, I also see most clearly what this future portends.

Those fighting and the servicemen and women training and supporting them—each faithful defender of all our freedoms—have paid the price necessary to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to millions of others around the world for generations to come. We owe them our gratitude, now and when they return home, for a job well done. Rest assured we'll be hearing from them again long afterwards as they continue to demonstrate that same courage and leadership in a society and world they helped to make a better and more peaceful one in which everyone may live.

It's the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us Freedom of the Press.

It's the Soldier, not the poet, who has given us Freedom of Speech.

It's the Soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the Freedom to Demonstrate.

It's the Soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the Right to a Fair Trial.

It's the Soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the protester the right to burn the flag.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

ike what's the hold up? I know we're supposed to call them our ally and everything. But, gee whiz, can't our newly re-elected president go to an about-to-be even more Republican-filled Congress and ask the equivalent of "Can I get me a huntin' license here?"

Extreme? Not really. It's all part of a plan to unite our allies and defeat the terrorists. It'll make the former respect us and the latter fear us more. I'm sure everybody wants that. They all said so during the election. So you see, this is a sure-fire way to make everyone happy. Let me explain.

France is the weakest link in our chain of allies in this war. Hardly anyone would dispute that. Not even the French. Now a chain is only as strong as—well, you know the rest. So why use a weaker chain when you have the means to cut out its weakest link and make it stronger and therefore more useful? "But how will the rest of the links react after you do that?" Well, if you're, say, the second weakest link and you wake up one morning and see the weakest one gone and ask what happened to it, what're going to do when another link tells you, "He was the weakest and got cut out. So I reckon that makes you the weakest link now. Mmwha haha ha ha"? Are you going to still slack around, waiting to be next? Or are you going to do what any self-respecting and non-suicidal link would do? That is, figure out a way to get stronger so some other link becomes the weakest? That's right. You're going to do the latter. After you do, the newest weakest link is going to face a similar dilemma and will respond exactly the same way. It'll get stronger too. A few more rounds of this and the difference between the weakest and strongest links will be practically nonexistent. Everyone wins because the entire chain is much, much stronger as a result.

"So how does this strike more fear into the terrorists' hearts black lumps of coal?" The answer's simple. When terrorists see that this is how we treat one of our friends, just imagine what they think we're going to be doing to them and their supporters. Not only that, but they'll be facing both the United States Armed Forces and the strongest chain of allies we could possibly ever have. We'll be united and the terrorists will be completely demoralized and defeated. Definitely a win-win situation for everyone on our side.

"What about my relatives living in France?" Don't despair. If anything, we're always humane. We'll first drop bar after bar after bar of soap on each of France's major cities, forcing most of its population to scatter and flee in a hurry. We'll also do some PsyOps, including broadcasts over their own airwaves announcing that hundreds of free-cheese stands have been set up outside their cities and they'll have to go get in line there and wait a couple of days to get some. Finally, we'll parachute in hundreds of plane loads of lady-Bic razors and shaving cream. That'll send any remaining stragglers into a real panic, giving them no choice but to head for the hills and leave each city entirely empty. This way there won't be any civilian casualties when we commence carpet-bombing operations. See how nice we are even when we're being terribly mean?

Of course, we'll have to arrest Jacque ChIraq and try him in an American court military tribunal for war crimes. "On what charges?" If you have to ask, you obviously haven't been paying attention the last couple of years. Further, we'll arrest UN Qingpin Kofi AnNut as a "material witness" (is that the right term?—not that it matters, so long as he's off the street).

After all this is done, Germany will immediately assume the status of weakest link. But by then I doubt it'll want to stay there too long. Soon Tony Blair will be publicly cursing "Jerry" for outpacing even Great Britain in terms of link strength.

Now the only questions remaining are which cities in France and how much of them do we bomb? Obviously, the answer to the latter is "the whole thing, down to the deepest wine cellar." The former we leave to commanders on the ground to answer. Depends on how many they see waiting in line at those free-cheese stands.

For the "winning the peace" and "exit strategy" parts of this plan, after the war we'll ask the UN to take over what's left of France and "help" it. The UN will administer a Wine-for-Food program so no French person ever has to go hungry. Then it'll begin inspecting that country for weapons—on second thought, that would be a total waste of time. Even if there are any weapons there, the French have never been willing to use them.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Miserably failing to pack along any mirrors, Dhimm al-Qrats once again saddle up that one-trick jackass of theirs named Blameothers. "Giddy-ap....I said, Giddy-aaaap!" (Blogs for Bush)

A

t this point in the picture our hero rides off into the sunset. After having righted all wrongs, his job here is done. Meanwhile, back in the theater, the credits start to roll.

As the cast list comes up we get to see who played all those villains whose evildoings our hero handily thwarted. Don't worry about trying to remember their names. They won't be appearing in any more pictures.

Didn't know it was two actors who portrayed the hero. Good ol' Red States and his stuntdouble U.I. I heard the former just landed the title role in Mel Gibson's next film Lincoln's Land.

The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections.

Almost forgot how much wrong rightin' our hero did.

Chris Suellentrop says that John [Q]erry was too nuanced and technocratic,

Even too Technicolored® at one point.

...while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world.

As all heroes are wont to do.

William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way BillBiIsIs [Q]linton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility.

(And, no, it wasn't possible for Mr. Saletan to keep a straight face when he wrote that.)

Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help.

Several tried to bob and weave and fake out our hero, but he picked them all off rather easily. A hero isn't anything if he isn't a great shot.

Slate asked a number of wise liberals

(Straight faces not kept here, either.)

...to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats.

Being, after all, the unteachable ignoramuses that they are. (The latter, not the former.)

Click here to read previous entries.

I say forget introspection. It's time to be honest about our antagonists.

Forget honest reflection, too. But that should be easy enough with such an obviously total lack of mirrors at 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA, 98052.

My predecessors in this conversation are thoughtful men, and I honor their ideas, but let's try something else.

By all means. Don't try anything like being thoughtful or considering any honorable ideas. When has that ever gotten anyone anywhere?

I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.

This was the part of the movie where the lead villain tried to get our hero lynched after getting him convicted in a vigilante court on trumped up charges. The villain's most memorable line: "So I put it to you, my fellow townsmen, that I have it on good authority that this ignorant scoundrel stole our horses and rustled our cattle. I say string 'em up now!" Fortunately, our hero managed to escape the rickety shed that the idiot mob was holding him in while they tried to scrounge up some rope. (Oh—by the way, that villain was the town's lawyer, in case you couldn't tell.)

I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)

Insults might work, too. So you probably should consider using some if you get the chance.

Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States,

Unlike in Europe, which has been forever flowing with kindness and enlightenment. Just ask the ten million Jews, homeless gypsies, homosexuals, and other minorities who were living there, oh, say 60 or 70 years ago. Wait—that's right, you can't. Without exception, all of them stopped living as of 59 years ago. Well...unlike in Africa, then. It surely hasn't seen any ignorance or bloodlust at all in the last ten years, so we can probably use the countries there for comparison purposes.

...especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair.

Of course, this refers to the trip our hero was making inside a stagecoach when it suddenly got hijacked by savage, cut-throating Apaches masquerading as passengers. They knocked out the driver and killed the cowboy riding shotgun before ramming the entire coach—horses and all—headlong into Fort Smith's main gate. Whew. Our hero barely made it out of this fix in one piece....No, I forgot. He didn't. Luckily, it was just one of those dream sequences that ended with him waking up alone in the middle of the night next to a campfire, drenched in sweat.

The ancestors of today's red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights.

You might want to consider talking about dead people, too. I hear it's pert near impossible for any of them to defend themselves. So you probably have nothing to worry about if you completely sully their reputations.

When the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the territorial election.

Must've been Dinkorats. The Republican Party didn't really come into existence until after those redders entered Kansas.

The red news media of the day made a practice of inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks whom everyone knew were walking around.

Perhaps those inflammatory liars were Dan Rather's ancestors. (Being that they're all dead, too, it's all right to say that they were.)

The worst civilian massacre in American history took place

...on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, starting around 8:30 a.m., and culminating with the death of over 3,000 of our own and other nations' citizens within the span of two hours. Who could ever forget that?

...in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid.

Well, I suppose Jane Smiley could.

The red forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children.

To put this horror in modern terms: Imagine an airplane full of unsuspecting passengers, when all of a sudden a crazed redder-like person jumps up, takes out a box cutter and slashes the throat of the nearest stewardess, killing her within minutes as shocked passengers and their children look on. Next they notice their aircraft descending lower and lower until trees, water, and buildings are only a few hundred feet below. A man tries to cover his little girl's eyes. A woman screams "Oh my God! Oh my God!" over and over. Then they all crash headlong into one of those buildings. Just imagine. You might even forget that you aren't in Kansas anymore.

The error that progressives[liberals] have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America.

I thought the stunt double did a good job in those scenes of our hero being thrown through a saloon window or getting run over by stampeding cattle sheep. Each was vital to the progression of the plot. So the director's estimation of their importance was spot on, in my view.

They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence.

Like Salem witch-hunters, the Quakers' persecutors, or Detroit, Chicago, and LA rioters.

The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind.

The consequence of this is a suicidal eagerness to make sure everyone stays equally well unarmed; except, of course, for the mugger slugging them in the street and taking their money after realizing just how easy it would be to prey on the defenseless citizens sheep there. Blue 9-1-1 call: "Send an ambulance—someone attacked me and now I'm bleeding to death." Red 9-1-1 call: "Send an ambulance—someone tried to attack me and now he's bleeding to death."

Here is how ignorance works:

Make the head of your political party someone with the winning-streak record of a Terry McAuliffe, then follow all his election advice.

First, they put the fear of God into you—

Which is usually what would happen to normal people had they awoken on a Wednesday morning in early November and seen the results of having followed any of Terry McAuliffe's election advice.

...if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell.

As a political party, this would happen to you anyway if you follow any of Terry McAuliffe's election advice.

Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory,

If you're a liberal you've already abdicated it. So you should have a tremendous head start at completely grasping L3.

...and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question.

As opposed to all those people in the Deadduckorat Party questioning the simple but logical system of belief that the right to choose outweighs the right of absolutely innocent, voiceless, and choiceless babies to live.

A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Well, Satan needn't worry about having to change the address of his quadrennial summer home then. Should be a relief to the landlords at 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003, that he won't be giving up that timeshare anytime soon.

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is)

Could be worse. You could've wrote "(the French, that is)."

...and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen.

Which is exactly the election advice McAuliffe & Co. gave the Desperat Party after their stunning successes in 2002.

This is flattering and reassuring,

As McAuliffe & Co. hoped it would be.

...and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent.

Why, by Christmas Winterfest™, we'll all be singing Kwanzaa carols. E.g., "Repugs roasting on an open fire/ Just Frist sitting in the Senate's back rows." Don't forget to decorate the artificial tree with condoms.

American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves.

Those Americans include Time's magazine editors who shamelessly offer a president oral sex as way of thanking him for helping keep abortion infanticidal birth-control legal. Just think what they would've offered him had he helped make HillaryCare legal!

That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways,

So much so he wanted to not only make everyone miserable but to also index their misery.

...and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted.

Yeah, I remember how President Reagan even included that in his inaugural address: "And so my fellow Americans, remember this always. If it feels good, do it." Or maybe it was something like "Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed." The Hedonist!

The history of the last four years shows that red state types,

Enough with the geographism, you geographist geographobe!

...above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant.

No, don't even try to make sense of that. You'll only hurt yourself. In nonloseral terms, it roughly translates into: If you let government (run totally by libs, of course) totally control how you live, work, play, marry, eat, etc., etc., then you'll be totally smart!

As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

They're offering to train you to follow every loony leftist liberal command they give and you have the gall to refuse? How ignorant!

Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor.

Such as when Micky Mooron encourages people to pay real money to see his muckadoomentary.

But by this time you don't need much encouragement—

Because Mooron's now giving it away free on DVD.

...you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket,

Coincidentally, that's the very subtitle of Mooron's cinematic scramble dog.

...and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope.

A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know,

Oh, well. At least the suspense of wondering whether Halliburton and other subsidiaries of Evilco Corp., Inc.® were ever going to get a ride on that mule, is finally over.

...decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers.

Let's not parse that and say we did. Suffice it to mean (I think) that eeeevil corporations control everything and everybody everywhere for only very eeeevil purposes. We'll let it go at that. Maybe throw in how there's a constitutional separation of church and Whoreywood, too, for good measure.

The architects of this strategy

Scoot over Evilco Corp. You forgot to make room for the Joooooooos!

...knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism,

In case you don't have a copy of the latest edition of LibSpeak:

Racistn. A person who disagrees with a liberal. adj. Of, relating to, or being in any disagreement with a liberal. Racismn.1. The belief that one or more liberals are or could be wrong about anything. 2. Miserably failing to recognize the outright superiority of liberals or liberalism to everyone or everything else, respectively.

...but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm.

Oh, now I get it! Let's just get rid of money and god(s) and there will be no more ignorance or red states or jooooos or anything else that might bother us. It was so blindingly obvious that I almost missed it.

They know no boundaries or rules.

Unlike liberals who always adhere to them—except when they might put any crimp on the Left's sole quest for ultimate and absolute power.

They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant.

Liberalsn. (See above sentence.)

Lots of Americans like and admire them because

Lots of Americans don't live in a fantasy Micky MooronLand inhabited by strange, incoherent creatures who splash patchouli oil all over themselves and equate anything and anyone they don't like to Hitler.

...lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up.

So even those who aren't as ignorant are just as ignorant. —Huh?

Can the Democrats appeal to such voters?

You want the long answer, or the short one? No matter. They both pretty much boil down to "No way on earth as long as the sky's blue and water wants to flow downhill"—or simply "No."

Do they want to?

Obviously, the same answers.

The Republicans have sold their souls for power.

While this is the voice of experience talking, it is nonetheless inapposite when speaking of Republicans. It is Dhimmicrat leaders who've not only sold their souls—and even sold out a few things that actually have real value, including honesty, trust, respect, loyalty, and love of country—all for their one and only love lust (i.e., Power), but tried to divide and conquer everyone else in this country to conclude that bargain. Such leaders have been so busy figuring out ways to win at any price—blurring together all means and ends—that they haven't bothered to even look once at the sidelines and see who has a heavily invested stake in the successful outcome of their venture and is thus cheering them on. The dividends in those futures are being reaped mainly by the one person who sees the most benefit in murdering your "red state types." Dhimmis close their eyes and don't want to notice how their lies and attacks against our government's executive branch are helping to expand his profit margin.

Must everyone?

No. Just Deadenderats.

Progressives[Liberals] have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time.

We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense,

Why not? You probably believe this would work simply because the Left has never tried it before. But it wouldn't work anyway because the Left is woefully incapable of either reason or common sense. Another UU and moveon.

...and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond.

As if your actions themselves haven't repeated it enough times so anyone at or above the IQ of an amoeba couldn't possibly fail to grasp your exact meaning: "Rules are meant to be broken, and the law doesn't apply to everyone"; everyone, in this instance, being Dementedrats. UU #3 and again moveon...

They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets.

Right. If we have a plan for attacking Fallujah after Election Day we should make sure the entire world gets to know about it, even down to the times and on which streets our troops will be advancing into the city. Now a great big UU—Let 'em hear you in the parking lot! Movingon...

Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching, too,

That's about all they're doing politically because, for whatever reason excuse, they purposefully don't want to get involved.

...and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight,

Not for them—just for your Dyinggaspic Party. But you don't have to show them that. It's clear by their level of involvement they already know.

...and that the battle is worth fighting.

No it isn't. Not the selfish kind you're proposing they fight merely on behalf of your party's sole aim of acquiring complete and utter power.

And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we reach the end of the motion picture and its credits: Another tedious Leftist acknowledgment to Herr Bush=Hitler and his fascist Nazi regime=administration.

Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.

Jane Smiley is the author of many novels and essays. She lives in California.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Good News: It'll wipe out the budget deficit. Great News: It involves the only tax liberals won't like.

“T

he most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today," said Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, speaking on condition of his being allowed to rip yet one more new one for a former national party that's quickly fading into anonymity. "To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John [Q]erry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity."

Jim Geraghty has the rest of the excerpt from Senator Miller's column titled "I tried to tell you..." which appeared, appropriately enough, in yesterday's Atlanta Urinal-Constipation.

What have to be the least empirically based predicators, however, are the now-infamous exit polls, seemingly wielded solely for propaganda and depress-the-voter purposes. At least their perpetrators did succeed at getting a court involved in their electioneering shenanigans—although probably not the kind of court they were predicting.

Along with their credibility, pollsters of the mainstream variety have lost their former powers to influence wishy-washy voters and thus affect elections. That, in my view, is yet another victory for which real mainstream Americans have much to be thankful.

* By the way, liberals. There's no need for any of you to move to Qanada. Simply shift parts of the border a bit south and you're there:

You might also want to persuade CNN's graphole department to lose its Atlanta digs for that Greater White North too, eh?

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

now stands for Wednesday, my fellow Americans. A Wednesday we will all look back on, as the years and decades and centuries go by, as one that, like so many other Wednesdays, was just another day in the life of this great nation.

I want everyone to know that, regardless what some networks are saying and what ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the official polls are saying, this race is not over. It will continue. Even after all the races in all the states are conceded, giving in to the same, now inescapable fact, I will continue running the race I began last year and through so many months on the campaign trail so that every American would know what it means to have a plan.

Don't anyone forget, ever, that I did have a plan. A plan for the country, for the world, for the children and their schools. A plan for the future and for the past. A plan to unite everyone everywhere every time. It was, and still is, a good plan. A thorough plan. A incredibly detailed yet remarkable concise and short plan. The kind of plan you need when there was a need for plans. Don't forget either, that we did need a plan; and I will continue making plans as long as they are needed.

I want you all to know that I did call President Bush today before I almost didn't call him. I also actually conceded that he might have somehow in all probability could have, if things were different, gotten perhaps most if not all of the count that several or more states are likely going to assume he can possibly get provided a few more of the one or two remaining percentages are at last taken into account at some point later in the foreseeable future. So I told him I might call back.

Anyway, this has been a wonderful day, which also starts with W. A wonderful Wednesday. Even the weather, for the most part, cooperated. Where we would win well with wide, welcoming wipeouts, while waiting wide-eyed, writing who won whenever we're worrying what Washington wrought. That's how well we've done. So I put it to you, my fellow Americans, who is the real winner here? I say we all are.

Thank you all for working hard to make this campaign and this election something we all can look back on in the years ahead, too. I know I will.

A hundred million MSMs, Dhimmis, and bin Ladens are no match for even an infinitesimal portion of the tiniest conceivable part of Your plan.

I

f my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

ALL the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers. And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years. Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee. Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him. For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills; A land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates; a land of oil olive, and honey; A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the LORD thy God for the good land which he hath given thee. Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 8)

Monday, November 01, 2004

Sen. [Q]erry insists that we're losing [in Iraq]—giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John [Q]erry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war. . . .

The struggle isn't just about the fate of one country, but about the future of the entire Middle East. If freedom and the rule of law get even a 51 percent victory in Iraq, it's the beginning of the end for the terrorists and the vicious regimes that bred them.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.

The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.

This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."